Talk:Thomas P. Griesa

Claptrash
In the section "Hedge fund hold-outs and Argentina's debt" are so many errors, that it should be removed entirely.

e.g. compare the text: "having paid US$49 million in the secondary market for bonds worth USD832 million by 2014" with the July 6th, 2011 judgment from The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which makes it clear that the NML Capital Ltd paid more than US$90 million for 20 percent of their bonds:

"Between 6 June 2001 and 2 September 2003 affiliates of NML bought bonds in the two bond series at prices which were, in aggregate, 55.37% and 62.82% of the face value of the respective series. In November 2003, NML asserted that Argentina was in default under the terms of the FAA because of its failure to pay interest on the bonds. NML refused to take part in the 2005 restructuring offer. Instead it issued proceedings against Argentina in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which handles nearly all of New York City's financial litigation. NML claimed that Argentina had committed an "event of default" under the FAA and that, under the terms of the bonds, NML was entitled to accelerated payment of the principal amount of the bonds and outstanding interest. The principal value of the bonds claimed was US$172,153,000. Unpaid interest on the bonds and interest on the unpaid interest claimed amounted to US$112,031,632.30. The total claimed was therefore US$284,184,632.30."

"Sovereign immunity in NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina" - Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - Judgment http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2010_0040_Judgment.pdf (page 2 (3 in the .pdf))

"Republic of Argentina v NML Capital Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 41" (04 February 2010) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/41.html

Joseph E. Stiglitz as a source
As regards using Joseph E. Stiglitz as a source, he either does not know what he is talking about, or perhaps the problem is that Stiglitz somehow has a personal, financial interest in the case?

“Debt restructuring” and the Argentine case by Joseph Stiglitz in Mercopress: http://en.mercopress.com/2014/08/02/debt-restructuring-and-the-argentine-case-by-joseph-stiglitz

Joseph E. Stiglitz: “The vulture funds — the small number of creditors who held out from Argentina's earlier debt restructuring -- “

No. There are thousands of holdouts worldwide. A couple of examples: In 2012 more than 400 German holdouts who had been robbed of their pension savings filed suits against Argentina in Frankfurt. The German court ruled against Argentina, which routinely ignore rulings against it.

A small subset (list 4 of 5): http://tmp.jgm.gov.ar/Paginas/InformeSenado/Informe%2079/Anexos/101-170_AyB/procuracion_resp_170a_y_b/170a/Listado4.pdf

Argentine holdouts: Norma Haydée Ginés, ... list of 11 other holdouts ... Pablo Alberto Varela, who filed lawsuits in US Federal Court, New York, South. http://www.iprofesional.com/notas/186461-Un-grupo-de-argentinos-hizo-una-presentacin-en-favor-de-los-fondos-buitre-ante-la-Corte http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1688905-argentinos-apoyan-a-los-buitres-en-la-corte

A couple of Italian holdouts: Giannandrea Leonardi, whose family inherited 115,000 euros worth of bonds that his father bought in 1998; and to Egidio Rolich, 59, who bought about 40,000 euros of Argentine bonds in 1998 with the proceeds from the sale of an apartment and his wife’s severance pay ... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-25/tired-italians-may-accept-anything-to-unload-argentina-s-defaulted-bonds.html

At the end of 2001, there were more than 500,000 creditors of the Republic of Argentina, 38.4% of the debt was owned by Argentine investors. Two other very large groups were Italian and German bond owners, who had invested their pensions savings. Retail investors owned some 44% of the value (36,000 million US$).

"... debt swaps in 2005 and 2010. Around three quarters of the debt holders of the defaulted debt accepted the debt swaps, representing 92.4% of the defaulted debt", i.e. leaving app 125,000 holdouts owning app 10.1 billion US$.

http://www.economist.com/node/3715779

"Dagong Downgrades the Foreign Currency Sovereign Credit Rating of Argentina to D[efault]" http://en.dagongcredit.com/content/details20_8131.html

"China's Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. Cuts Argentina to Default" http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=2346488&CategoryId=14093

Joseph E. Stiglitz: ”They picked up their bonds on the cheap“

A July 6th, 2011 judgment from The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, makes it clear that NML Capital Ltd paid more than 50 percent of a subset of their bonds face value of US$172 million.

At the restructuring, Argentina paid less than 30 percent of their face value. These terms provided bondholders much less compensation than plans offered in other developing-nation debt restructurings, which averaged 50 to 60 percent haircuts. Moreover, the plan stipulated that its terms were not subject to negotiation; and on February 9, 2005 ...

”Vultures” paid more than 50, Argentina less than 30. Who are the vultures?

Sovereign immunity in NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina - Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - Judgment http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2010_0040_Judgment.pdf (page 2 (3 in the .pdf))

Robert J. Shapiro & Nam D. Pham: "Discredited – The Impact of Argentina’s Sovereign Debt Default and Debt Restructuring on U.S. Taxpayers and Investors" http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/argentina_1006.pdf

Investors who participated in restructurings in 2005 and 2010, receiving 25 to 29 cents on the dollar http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/162974/holdouts-country-must-negotiate-first-

Joseph E. Stiglitz: “they would eventually find a sympathetic judge who did not understand what was at issue and rule in their favor.”

The main parts of Federal Judge Greisas ruling was upheld by the full US Court of Appeals. The US Supreme court found not faults which would make them dismiss Federal Judge Greisas ruling.

Ruling of the full US Court of Appeals: ”For the reasons stated, the judgments of the district court (1) granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on their claims for breach of the Equal Treatment Provision and (2) ordering Argentina to make “Ratable Payments” to plaintiffs concurrent with or in advance of its payments to holders of the 2005 and 2010 restructured debt are affirmed.“

United States Court of Appeals ruling, NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina 12-105(L) (26 October 2012) http://www.shearman.com/~/media/Files/Old%20Site%20Files/secondcircuitdecision110512.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/ca2/5a3L/nml-capital-ltd-v-republic-of-argentina/

Joseph E. Stiglitz: ”anyone buying bonds after a country announces a debt restructuring ...“

The July 6th, 2011 judgment from The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (above) makes it clear that NML Capital Ltd bought at least part of their bonds from June 2001 and September 2003. The previous Argentina default was one of the last days of December 2001; the first debt restructuring was i 2005. Obvious to anyone but Stiglitz, NML bought at least 20% (nominal value) of their bonds years before Argentina announced its debt restructuring. -- Dont play that card. Dont pretend that we are all THAT naive. We know perfectly how this groups works. Yes, the may have purchased part of the bonds before the argentine collapse, but is because that collapse was obviously coming and it was unavoidable that the bonds were bought. That does not change the spirit of what Stiglitz is trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.19.107.64 (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Joseph E. Stiglitz: ”they have undermined the rule of law, and made debt restructuring almost impossible.”

Since the year 2005, 97.6 percent (206 out of 211) sovereign debt bond issues have contained a so-called 'collective action clause' which authorizes a supermajority (typically 2/3 or 3/4) of all bond holders to block holdouts. The remaining 5 contracts are all from Jamaica. Holdouts is a thing of the past.

https://www.courtlistener.com/ca2/5a3L/nml-capital-ltd-v-republic-of-argentina/ (p. 27 & note 17)

Biased
the section Argentina's debt restructuring and Controversy are so clearly biased that should be removed. It looks more like propaganda from ATFA than an informative article in wikipedia.

Browder
A section should be added to summarize Griesa’s lamentable (and ultimately reversed) behavior in protecting the disgusting John Moscow and Baker Hosteteler as they sold themselves out to Putin in 2014. 2603:8001:6D01:3282:B0E8:B052:83D2:F725 (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources? BD2412  T 03:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)